Gonzalez v. Officer John Doe

Filing 46

ORDER re 45 Order to Show Cause. The Court hereby SANCTIONS Plaintiff in the amount of $200. Payment of the court fine shall be made to the Clerk, U.S. District Court no later than 11/30/2015. Plaintiff is also ordered to file a proof of p ayment on the docket by that date. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this order may result in recommendation to the Chief District Judge for dismissal of his case with prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/10/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10

RODOLFO GONZALES,

11

Plaintiff(s),

12

vs.

13

DOUGLAS GILLESPIE, et al.,

14

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00792-GMN-NJK
ORDER

15
Pending before the Court is an order for Plaintiff to show cause why he should not be sanctioned
16

pursuant to Rule 16(f)1 and Local Rule IA 4-1. Docket No. 45. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond.

17
See Docket. Having reviewed the record, and for the reasons discussed more fully below, the Court
18
hereby SANCTIONS Plaintiff in the amount of a $200 court fine.
19
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20
The matter currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s most recent failure to participate
21
meaningfully in this action. On May 27, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to compel discovery and a
22
motion for sanctions. Docket Nos. 33, 34. Plaintiff failed to respond to either motion. See Docket. On
23
July 1, 2015, the Court granted both motions and awarded Defendants $570 in attorneys’ fees, noting
24
that Plaintiff filed nothing opposition. See Docket No. 38. On July 21, 2015, after granting Plaintiff’s
25
counsel’s motion to withdraw, the Court ordered Plaintiff to retain new counsel or file a notice of intent
26
27
28

1

Unless otherwise noted, references to “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1

to proceed pro se, no later than August 20, 2015. Docket No. 41. To date, Plaintiff has filed neither.

2

See Docket. On August 19, 2015, Chief United States District Judge Gloria M. Navarro referred this

3

case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference. Docket No. 42. That same day,

4

the Court set a settlement conference to commence at 10:00 a.m. on October 13, 2015. See Docket No.

5

43. The Court ordered all individual parties to attend the settlement conference and submit confidential

6

settlement conference statements. Id., at 3. On October 13, 2015, Plaintiff failed to appear, after having

7

failed to his settlement conference statement. Docket No. 44. That same day, the Court ordered

8

Plaintiff to show cause why he should not be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 16(f) and Local Rule IA 4-1

9

for his failure to comply with the Court’s orders. Docket No. 45. Again, Plaintiff failed to submit a

10

response. See Docket.

11

II.

STANDARDS

12

Orders are not suggestions or recommendations, they are directives with which compliance is

13

mandatory. See, e.g., Chapman v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 613 F.2d 193, 197 (9th Cir. 1979). There are

14

several sources of legal authority by which federal courts enforce their orders. Most pertinent here, Rule

15

16(f) requires compliance with any “scheduling or other pretrial order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(C).

16

The Local Rules in this District reinforce Rule 16(f) and expand its scope by requiring compliance “with

17

any order of this Court.” Local Rule IA 4-1(d).

18

Rule 16(f) is “broadly remedial and its purpose is to encourage forceful judicial management.”

19

Sherman v. United States, 801 F.2d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).2 Rule 16(f) applies

20

regardless of whether the non-compliance with the court order was intentional, see, e.g., Lucas Auto.

21

Eng’g, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d 762, 769 (9th Cir. 2001), and regardless of whether

22

the non-compliance was in bad faith, see, e.g., Martin Family Trust v. Heco/Nostalgia Enters. Co., 186

23

F.R.D. 601, 604 (E.D. Cal. 1999).

24

Courts do not invoke Rule 16(f) to enforce their orders for sport. Violations of orders setting

25

deadlines “involve a matter most critical to the court itself: management of its docket and the avoidance

26
27
28

2

The Court herein focuses its attention on Rule 16(f), but sanctions are being imposed on Plaintiff
pursuant to both Rule 16(f) and Local Rule IA 4-1(d).
2

1

of unnecessary delays in the administration of its cases.” Martin Family Trust, 186 F.R.D. at 603

2

(quoting Matter of Sanction of Baker, 774 F.2d 1440, 1441 (10th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (internal

3

quotations omitted)). “Part of the purpose of the sanctioning power – the power at issue here – is to

4

control litigation and preserve the integrity of the judicial process.” Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270

5

F.3d 590, 594 (8th Cir. 2001). Each judge has an independent responsibility to enforce the directives

6

she has laid down for the case:

7
8
9

Rules are rules and the parties must play by them. In the final analysis, the
judicial process depends heavily on the judge’s credibility. To ensure such
credibility, a judge must often be firm in managing crowded dockets and
demanding adherence to announced deadlines. If he or she sets a reasonable due
date, parties should not be allowed casually to flout it or painlessly escape the
foreseeable consequences of noncompliance.

10
Legault v. Zambarano, 105 F.3d 24, 28-29 (1st Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
11
When a court determines that Rule 16(f) has been violated, it has broad discretion in fashioning
12
an appropriate sanction. See, e.g., Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1397 (9th Cir.
13
1993); see also Local Rule IA 4-1 (the Court may impose “any and all appropriate sanctions on an
14
attorney” who violates any order without just cause). Violations of orders are “neither technical nor
15
trivial,” Martin Family Trust, 186 F.R.D. at 603, and can have severe ramifications. While not
16
expressly enumerated, the imposition of court fines is within the scope of the “just orders” permitted
17
by Rule 16(f). See, e.g., Nick, 270 F.3d at 595-96. In determining the appropriate sanction, a primary
18
objective is to deter similar misconduct. See, e.g., Martin Family Trust, 186 F.R.D. at 604.
19
In this instance, Plaintiff has exhibited habitual non-compliance with clear court orders. By
20
opting not to submit a settlement conference statement or to attend the settlement conference, Plaintiff
21
violated the Court’s August 19, 2015, order. See Docket No. 44. Plaintiff continued this pattern even
22
after being expressly cautioned that the Court expects strict compliance with its orders and that non23
compliance could lead to the imposition of significant sanctions. See Docket No. 45. Currently at issue
24
is Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. Docket No. 45. The order was
25
crystal clear: the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond by October 30, 2015; yet, Plaintiff chose not to
26
comply. These repeated failures surrounding the mandatory settlement conference demonstrate
27
28
3

1

Plaintiff’s cavalier attitude toward court orders. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s misconduct merits the

2

imposition of sanctions.

3

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to heed the Court’s previous order sternly warning him to strictly

4

comply with court orders, the delay caused by his non-compliance with the order setting the settlement

5

conference, and the wasted judicial resources caused by his non-compliance, the Court finds that a court

6

fine of $200 is appropriate. The Court believes this fine does not fully reflect the effect of Plaintiff’s

7

misconduct on either the integrity of the Court’s docket or the sanctity of Rule 16 and Local Rule IA

8

4-1. Nonetheless, in this instance, the Court believes the sanction is sufficient to deter similar

9

misconduct.

10

IV.

CONCLUSION

11

For the reasons discussed more fully above, the Court hereby SANCTIONS Plaintiff in the

12

amount of $200 in a court fine. This sanction is imposed pursuant to both Rule 16(f) and Local Rule

13

IA 4-1. Payment of the court fine shall be made to the “Clerk, U.S. District Court” no later than

14

November 30, 2015. Plaintiff is also ordered to file a proof of payment on the docket by that date.

15

Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this order may result in recommendation to the Chief

16

District Judge for dismissal of his case with prejudice.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED: November 10, 2015

19
20

______________________________________
_______________
________________
____
NANCY J. KOPPE
ANCY J. KOPPE
PPE
United States Magistrate Judge
nited
Ma t r
Ma strate
agist

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4